Article 34 - LCHSG: Examples of Rezoning from Arlington

[Tom Shiple]

Dear Town Meeting Members: This is the tenth in a series of posts by the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group (LCHSG) focused on Lexington’s implementation of the state’s MBTA Communities (MBTA-C) law.  Previous posts can be found at our website.

Overview: We take a look at the neighboring town of Arlington to see the pace of development when zoning changes allow denser residential development. Their examples show that redevelopment occurs slowly, one property at a time, and when the property owners think the time is right. Following rezoning for mixed-use in 2016, 8 projects have been completed or are in progress, generating only 107 housing units in 7 years.   This reinforces the notion that increasing "zoned capacity" does not immediately translate into new construction. In other words, zoning does not equal building.

Details: In 2016, Arlington’s Article 6 allowed mixed-use buildings (commercial/residential) in all six of their business districts: B1, B2, B2A, B3, B4, and B5 (GIS map). These districts are located along Mass Ave, Broadway, and a few nearby streets like Mill St.  All together, they comprise 134 acres of Arlington’s total acreage of 3,517 (4%).  There are 363 non-condo parcels, with an average lot size of 6,000-7,000 square feet.  The allowable building height is generally 5 stories and 60 feet.

We have exchanged emails with a member of Arlington’s Redevelopment Board (their Planning Board), to understand what has transpired in the last seven years: there have been only eight projects developed under this bylaw, with three of those still under construction. In all, when the projects are completed, they will have added a total of 107 housing units (see list).

The board member noted that Arlington has a number of “generational” commercial landlords, meaning properties that have been in the same family for years.  One of them is keen on redevelopment and is responsible for three of the projects mentioned above.  Others appear to be satisfied with their current arrangements and are not redeveloping their properties.

As another example, Arlington’s Article 43 (more here) in 2021 allowed accessory dwelling units, by-right, on any single or two-family residential property.  There are about 8,000 single-family parcels in Arlington, along with numerous two-families.  There was a worry that ADUs would flood Arlington, however, in two years there have been a total of four ADUs permitted.

Both of these examples speak to the fact that redevelopment will occur one parcel at a time, when the property owners think the time is right.  This adds to the sentiment expressed by Lexington’s Associate Planning Board member Michael Leon in his closing comments about Article 34 at the 2/16/2023 Planning Board meeting:

I want to dispel this belief that tomorrow or next year you are going to see any significant impact or increase in the amount of development. It is an incredibly difficult process for someone to implement the development objectives of this bylaw with so many impediments–financial and logistical. It will be difficult to assemble properties that will result in a significant increase in the amount of multi-family housing in town. It’s not going to be a wave, it’s not going to be a tsunami. It’s going to be a very slow process with a small fraction of all of these overlay districts accommodating the type of development that we’re trying to enable. Hopefully over the longer term it will lead to a significant increase in the total amount of housing inventory in the region.

Although the Arlington cases are not perfect matches for the MBTA-C zoning proposed in Lexington, they do indicate that just because new development opportunities become available, it doesn’t mean that development will happen quickly. It also illustrates the inherent problem of using zoned capacity to estimate actual production.

Tom Shiple (TMM Pct 9) 

Jay Luker (TMM Pct 1)

Barbara Katzenberg (TMM Pct 2)

Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group

[Lin Jensen]

Arlington's Article 6 reads that their special corridors (Mass Ave and Broadway) are allowing "multi-use by special permits". Article 34 in our TM is by-right. 

Arlington's Article 43 accessory dwelling by-right seems quite different from Article 34, which allows up to 60 feet in height. 

Respectfully,

Lin Jensen, TM P8

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAK6Yrbe4hu%3DMmfHoumN3o4R_L-OnAxC7azV0kY-O-sj1YYb0gw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Meg Muckenhoupt]

Arlington's Article 43 accessory dwelling by-right seems quite different from Article 34, which allows up to 60 feet in height. 

As I'm reading the revised motion,  Article 34 section 7.5.5 part 10, calls for 52' in the MFO district, 42' in the VO district, and 70' in the VHO district. It states:

a.*In the VO District, where at least 30% of the total net floor area of the street floor of the development is occupied by nonresidential principal uses, the maximum height is 60 feet if the nonresidential uses are permitted in the underlying district or 52 feet if the nonresidential uses are not permitted in the underlying district. 

b. *In the VHO District where at least 50% of the total net floor area on the lot is occupied by nonresidential principal uses permitted in the underlying district, the maximum height is 115 feet.

Lexington Center is in the MFO district. 

Meg Muckenhoupt

Precinct 1

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CACTa0dqK6sifSQC%3D89pThteMTZkDjDiF6eQBHYry%3DsdYAnO%2B2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Todd O. Burger]

Can anyone answer this?

I just finished watching the March 2nd TMMA meeting on LexMedia and I am confused on one point about Article 34.  I thought I heard town staff assert that the 14 acres in the MFO (the town center and N. Bedford St acreage) qualified under the Housing MBTA state ruling if Article 34 is passed.  However, I thought that the center portion of the MFO would NOT qualify toward the 1231 units requirement because the town would rightly insist that that portion of the MFO had a ground floor of commercial space.  Which is it?  Qualifying or not?  I understand why the Planning Board might want to include both portions of the MFO in Article 34 even if one portion does not qualify, but I want to know if I am correct that one portion would NOT qualify.

-Todd Burger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAFKi9D_fvHpH_U51XnzOJjkUbcPqk2Pb6f82XgfKgd930wuzbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sarabothwellallen]

You are correct that any areas that require ground floor commercial would NOT qualify.

Sara Bothwell Allen

precinct 6

[Dahua Pan]

Hello Tom

Thank you very much for sending the Arlington examples. I think one of the driving forces behind how fast a piece of land gets developed and how many parcels get developed is profit margin and Arlington and Lexington are probably in very different situations.

Let's take a theoretical scenario, say if a developer acquires one acre of land in Lexington and let's assume that the developer will build to maximize profit, 

1) If the developer is to build in accordance with current zoning bylaw/subdivision, how many houses can the developer build and what is the total value of these houses?

2) If the developer is to build for the minimal density of 15 units/acre under article 34, what is the total value of the 15 units, considering that 15% of the units will be affordable?

3) If the developer is to build for the maximal number of units (? not sure if I have seen a number yet), what is the total value of all the units, considering that 15% of the units will be affordable?

We probably will not get a precise estimate, but a ballpark number will be helpful.

Thank you very much,

Dahua Pan

Precinct 8

     

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:01 AM Tom Shiple <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ruth Thomas]

Do the bonus feet apply to the MFO District, which is CB, so that 52" could become 60'?

Ruth Thomas, 4

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/7a485c3c-5144-49bf-bc52-ed3bc73b3920n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vicki Blier]

For what it's worth, an anecdotal contribution:

For a different purpose a few years ago, I called Avalon to find out how the rents compare between their Lexington apartments and their Waltham apartments.
To my surprise it turned out that the rents were comparable.

So if Waltham apartments are as desirable as Lexington apartments, I would assume that the case would be similar between Arlington apartments and Lexington apartments. 
I've known three families who tried to move to Arlington, but found that it's very expensive and the market very competitive. None was successful and they all ended up elsewhere or staying where they were.

Therefore, with profitability likely to be comparable, I don't see any reason to discount the validity of using Arlington as an example of what might transpire in Lexington.

Vicki Blier
Pct. 9

781-862-1804 Landline First

617-549-3207 Mobile

    

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CACiQ7mEroH%2BZ_tG02MwtPrWkVfGE0%3DZjoOR2AA%2BYqHuLN%2B1v9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dahua Pan]

I have to respectfully disagree. Same profitability is based on two assumptions:

1) Same housing market. A quick redin search yields the following:  Lexington median house price 1.28M;  Arlington 1.04M.

2) Same zoning article with same potential for development and profitability (number of units, maximal GRA, by right development etc). Arlington Article 6 is for mixed-use; article 43 is to allow for accessory units attached to existing homes. I don't think these articles are apple-to-apple comparison to article 34. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAKJ90gjTBDxxhq_MGNBAsEZ2GJnQgyxrFEc1HW6Ds9gzuc%2BKqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ruth Thomas]

I think my question is answered in the Q&A:

A: In article 36 no changes to the dimensional controls are proposed. Article 36 is amending the zoning map for the subject areas to be in the CB zone. The CB zone currently allows up to 25 ft. maximum height. This article does not change the maximum height of 25 ft. Separately, article 34 proposes an overlay district that allows up to 52 ft. in height under certain specific conditions detailed in article 34.

If Article 36 is passed, the allowable height would be 52 ft because the rezoned areas would be regulated under Article 34 if it passes.  There would not be bonus feet added because all development in the CB/MFO zone requires first floor commercial uses.

Am I correct?

The Article 36 presentation slide 2 ought to include the consequences of changing the current zoning to CB which will happen as a consequence of the proposed MFO overlay under Article 34 if passed.  The Q&A answer acknowledges that the rezoned areas will double the permitted height from 25' to 52' or from 2 stories to 4 stories.  Technically, this information is irrelevant to Aricle 36 per se.

https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8387/Art-36-central-business-presentation-slide?bidId=

Ruth Thomas, 4

[Tom Shiple]

Regarding the special permit situation for the mixed-use developments in Arlington, we asked the planning board member for more information.  Seven of the eight developments received approval within 1.8 to 3.5 months of filing for a permit.  The remaining one took eight months, but our contact wasn’t sure why.  They didn’t have a strong sense of how the  special permit requirement was affecting the rate of development, but did feel that lot size and dimensional regulations are barriers. Our takeaway from this is that, even with what appears to be a very streamlined special permit process, there were only eight new developments and 107 housing units added over a seven year period.

We understand that the Arlington examples are not a perfect match for Article 34. The main point of our post is to show that increasing "zoned capacity" does not automatically translate into a lot of new construction.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CADvQVgymaCM2smHjQz08ET_b2DgRsjpzT1%2BrZa%2B2Oqr6TyfOEw%40mail.gmail.com.